本文關(guān)鍵詞： 義務(wù)之訴 司法權(quán)界限 行政之法律拘束與形成自由　出處：《西南政法大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：義務(wù)之訴指行政相對人向法院提起訴訟，請求法院判決行政機(jī)關(guān)應(yīng)作成具體行政行為，或者應(yīng)作成特定內(nèi)容之具體行政行為的訴訟。與傳統(tǒng)撤銷之訴，僅消極除去違法行政行為不同，義務(wù)之訴旨在使司法權(quán)以更積極的方式，干預(yù)行政機(jī)關(guān)作成決定，為當(dāng)事人權(quán)利提供更為完整和有效的保護(hù)。但司法權(quán)與行政權(quán)皆有其固有之界限，司法權(quán)之干預(yù)若不加限定，則侵害行政權(quán)之形成自由，違背司法權(quán)的性質(zhì)。因此，在義務(wù)之訴中，應(yīng)將司法權(quán)限定在何種范圍內(nèi)，始能既發(fā)揮其完整有效保護(hù)人民權(quán)利之功能，又尊重行政權(quán)之形成自由，便成為問題。本文對義務(wù)之訴中司法權(quán)與行政權(quán)的界限進(jìn)行考察，著重分析義務(wù)之訴審理中有關(guān)訴權(quán)、請求權(quán)、裁判時機(jī)成熟等三個問題，以期對義務(wù)之訴中司法權(quán)界限的問題有一更為清晰的認(rèn)識。全文由引言、四個章節(jié)組成。引言部分簡要介紹了義務(wù)之訴的難題與研究方法的選擇。第一章，對大陸法系國家義務(wù)之訴的審理框架作了簡要介紹，又對義務(wù)之訴的功能和遭遇的難題作了討論，從義務(wù)之訴的審理框架中選取了訴權(quán)的審查、請求權(quán)基礎(chǔ)的審查、裁判時機(jī)成熟的判斷三者，作為義務(wù)之訴中司法權(quán)界限的考察對象。第二章，在有關(guān)訴權(quán)問題的論述中，著重介紹了保護(hù)規(guī)范理論，再據(jù)其討論了義務(wù)之訴中的無瑕疵裁量請求權(quán)問題。第三章，對請求權(quán)基礎(chǔ)審查作了介紹，，并就我國學(xué)者歸納出的幾類請求權(quán)基礎(chǔ)作了論述。第四章，先簡述了裁判時機(jī)成熟理論的意義，再結(jié)合裁量理論，對涉及裁量決定與帶判斷余地決定的行政行為進(jìn)行討論,分辨出司法權(quán)在判決裁量處分時的界限。最后就我國履行判決的審理情況作了對比，建議我國嘗試以法教義體系組織既有司法實踐經(jīng)驗，增強(qiáng)判決說理部分的解釋力，也便于實務(wù)操作與學(xué)說探討。
[Abstract]:The action of obligation refers to the lawsuit filed by the administrative counterpart to the court requesting the court to decide that the administrative organ should act as a specific administrative act or the action of the specific administrative act of a specific content. Only the negative removal of illegal administrative acts different, the purpose of the obligation of litigation in order to make the judicial power in a more positive way, to interfere with the administrative organs to make decisions. To provide more complete and effective protection for the rights of the parties. But the judicial power and the executive power have their inherent boundaries, if the judicial intervention is not limited, the formation of the executive power will be infringed. Therefore, in the litigation of obligation, judicial power should be limited to what range, in order to play its full and effective function of protecting the rights of the people, and respect the formation of the freedom of executive power. This article investigates the boundary between judicial power and administrative power in the litigation of obligation, focusing on the analysis of three issues: the right of action, the right of claim and the ripe time of adjudication. In order to have a clearer understanding of the boundaries of judicial power in compulsory litigation. The full text is composed of introduction, four chapters. The introduction part briefly introduces the difficult problems and the choice of research methods. Chapter one. This paper briefly introduces the trial frame of the civil law system country's obligation action, discusses the function and difficulties of the obligation action, and selects the examination of the right of action from the framework of the civil law system. The examination of the basis of the right of claim and the judgment of the judge's time are the objects of investigation of the limits of judicial power in the litigation of obligation. Chapter two focuses on the theory of protection norms in the discussion of the issue of the right of action. The third chapter introduces the review of the basis of the right of claim, and discusses several types of the basis of the right of claim. Chapter 4th. First of all, this paper briefly introduces the significance of the theory of mature judgment, and then discusses the administrative behavior involving discretion decision and decision with the margin of judgment combined with the theory of discretion. Finally, the author makes a comparison of the trial situation of our country to fulfill the judgment, and suggests that our country try to organize the judicial practice experience with the legal doctrine system. Enhance the interpretation of the judgment reasoning, but also facilitate practical operation and theoretical discussion.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D926

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 章志遠(yuǎn);;給付行政與行政訴訟法的新發(fā)展——以行政給付訴訟為例[J];法商研究;2008年04期

2 馬懷德,吳華;對我國行政訴訟類型的反思與重構(gòu)[J];政法論壇;2001年05期

本文編號：1491066